On 5/11/13 1:50 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> The image caching just happens automatically. Benchmarking would
> involve timing a procedure in 5.5.4 and then repeating it in 6.0.1 to
> see the difference.
Right, but using what script? Which references cache and which don't,
and which operations should show the benefit of caching?
I read it to mean all images, imported or referenced, and all object
references ("card ID xxx", "btn ID xxxx of card 3", etc.) are cached. So
to test, I guess one way would be to run some image-heavy stack that
uses duplicate images on different cards. The old way was to reload
every image when the card was first drawn. The new way is to keep images
in a cache in case they're needed again. So make a stack and place the
same image on multiple cards. Navigate through the cards. Try it in both
5.5.4 and 6.0.1.
They also say caching works for referenced images, so do the same thing
with those instead of importing the images into the stack.
Another test might be to load an image dynamically by script. Store a
couple of images somewhere, and run a repeat loop that loads the text of
an image object alternately between the two. In an uncached scheme it
should reload each image from scratch on each call. In a cached scheme,
the two images should be ready to display instantly.
I think.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
